At last report there were about 3,200 inmates in the United States awaiting execution. That number includes about 150 convicted murderers who were sentenced to death in 2006.

During the last 12 months, there have been just 53 executions nationwide.

The math is easy. At the current rate, it will take about 60 years to clear the death rows in the various states, never mind any sentences that might be imposed during the coming decades.

The inescapable conclusion is that many convicted murderers, sentenced to death, will instead die of old age. It’s not difficult to find the reason why. The courts are awash in cases challenging some aspect of the death penalty. Next month the U.S. Supreme Court will hear four death penalty cases.

It is no wonder opponents of the death penalty needn’t worry about mustering the support for repeal. They would be quite happy if courts simply prevented its use.

The strategy seems to be working. Take the California case of Michael Angelo Morales, who has been on death row for a quarter-century. He was sentenced to die for the brutal rape and murder of 17-year-old Teri Winchell in 1981. Winchell was stabbed and ultimately beaten to death with 23 blows from a claw hammer.

Early this year, Morales sought a stay of his scheduled February execution on the grounds that the lethal injection he faced posed an “unnecessary risk” of inflicting “extreme pain.”

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel issued an unusual opinion, giving California one more chance to “fix” its execution protocols to ensure that inmates facing the death penalty will be absolutely and positively unconscious when the final two of a three-chemical combination are administered.

One of the odd things about the judge’s decision is his repeated statement that there is “no direct evidence” that any of those previously executed in California were “conscious” at the time the final and most lethal chemicals were injected and no direct evidence they experienced “extreme pain.” He nonetheless found the state had created an “undue and unnecessary risk of an Eighth Amendment violation.” The Eighth Amendment says that “cruel and unusual punishment” shall not be inflicted.

The state of California currently has limited choices. It could simply keep its existing protocol and suspend all executions pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or it could comply with what Fogel has labeled “a memorandum of intended decision: Request for response from defendants” (the state of California).

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken the latter course and ordered correction officials to comply with the judge’s order and revise, as necessary, the protocols now in place.

That course of action, sad to say, will not end the matter. A second case is pending before the same judge, this one challenging any use of one of the chemicals (pancuronium bromide) now a part of the lethal injections in dozens of states. Obviously, the battle will go on and on.

Proponents of the death penalty aren’t yet willing to surrender, nor should they. After all, the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the death penalty. It has said that the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment” must be viewed in the light of the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Those standards, however, are to be decided by the state legislatures and Congress and it is noteworthy that state lawmakers have almost uniformly chosen lethal injection as the most humane form of execution.

The Supreme Court has also clearly said that executions need not be painless. That isn’t surprising given that hangings and electrocutions used to be the most common forms of execution.

The high court has ruled out only those executions where the infliction of pain is “unnecessary and wanton.”

The key word here is “and.” The California judge seems to say that the mere risk of “unnecessary pain” (however that may be defined) is sufficient to interfere with the execution procedures.

That is surely an error, and someday, hopefully before old age further reduces the population of death row, the Supreme Court will have the final word.

Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff. His column appears on Wednesdays.

Injection sites about safety, providing a path to recover Re: “Safe injection site bill shelved,” Feb. 20 news story Understandably, a person’s first reaction to providing safe injection sites for drug users might seem ludicrous. But, upon educating oneself and learning more about the research and purpose behind the sites, safety for all is the No. 1 premise. Republican minority...

The Catholic dioceses of Colorado should have reported to authorities any and all accusations of sexual abuse decades ago, but we must praise the development that finally came Tuesday when church officials announced they will open their records for scrutiny.